Huntsman's ace up the sleeve is his ability to appeal to centrist and independent voters.

In a party where candidates try to out-"conservative" each other every day, Huntsman calls himself "a pragmatic problem solver."

Even his criticisms of Obama reek of common sense, as with his gentle rebuke of the president's Israel-Palestinian peace plan: "If you respect Israel," Huntsman said, "we probably ought to ask what they think is best."

"I believe in civility," he told CNN's John King. "I believe we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're not going to agree with people 100% of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them."

On fiscal issues, conservatives can look at Huntsman's record as governor with confidence. He supported a series of tax cuts that aimed to create a more business-friendly environment in Utah, improving its competitiveness in the global economy. During his tenure, Utah was named one of the best states to do business in and the "best managed state" by the Pew Center on the States.

This message will resonate with the overwhelming number of Americans who want to see an end to Washington's hyper-partisan infighting. Huntsman's approach could give swing voters who personally like Obama permission to vote against him in the fall of 2012. It's the politics of addition, not division: an affirmation of old American wisdom once articulated by Benjamin Franklin. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I often use my wife as my own polling survey. Last night I showed her the Bret Baier interview of Paul Ryan from Thursday. She liked him a lot. Several of her comments indicated to me that women would respond well to him.

I watched the Bachmann video at Crafty's link (and have seen her many other times). Articulate, detailed about a national security issue (and monetary and constitutional issues), speaks mostly without notes or prompter. She is on the Intelligence committee with national security clearance and knowledge, also Financial Services Committee. Credible with conservatives to give cover for a difficult vote that could spark a tea party challenge. She appreciates the contention between the national security interest and general opposition to expanded powers. She explains with enough detail to show why we need these powers to track terrorists.

That said, is Bachmann best suited in a legislative or executive capacity? If it is executive, that would be without experience running in a room full of governors. But she is making quite an effective national firestorm right where she is.

Garfield was elected President from the House - so it is possible.

Bachmann's appeal is to conservatives. She has limited appeal to independents and none to Democrats IMO. Probably best suited IMHO right where she is, holding elected Republicans to their promises and their principles.

JDN wrote: "Huntsman's ace up the sleeve is his ability to appeal to centrist and independent voters."

BD clarified: " ... he first has to appeal to Republicans to win the primary."

- Absolutely correct.------------------------

McCain is a centrist famous for his moderation. He actually won the primaries, got to run against the number one far leftist, least experienced senator and lost. Unique times certainly, but there is more to it.

The question for the Republicans is: Who can win the hearts minds and passions of the conservatives first, AND appeal to the sensible middle of the spectrum. JDN's ace point assumes (IMO) the conjunction right OR center, really right VERSUS center, when the question is who unites right AND center.

I've been to countless Republican nominating conventions where the contention is stated as conservative principles versus electable centrist and who wins depends on the year and the crowd. The best candidates of course start with all the core principles of their party or their movement and then take that appeal to the center with persuasion (or obfuscation) rather than abandonment of principles. Reagan on the right and the Obama 2008 campaign on the left are examples.

McCain won the endorsement without winning the hearts and minds of conservatives. He started the general campaign still needing to reach to the right before he could reach to the middle. Neat trick if you can do it. Obama left his convention with the left in his hip pocket and only needed to reach to the middle, with reassurances, good endorsements, billion dollar advertising and Greek column, music-filled obfuscation. When McCain reached back to the right, Obama took the middle and the prize money.

Reagan won by espousing nothing but core principles. In the general election, twice, all he needed to do was reach into his own heart and explain why he believes what he believes. When the going got tough coming into 1984, the opponents chose their most highly qualified opponent for him. Reagan didn't shift down to growth-economy-lite or cold-war-lite to solidify his appeal to the middle. He stuck with core principles, explained and explained them, and won 49 states.

The assumption from the far-centrists is that conservatives have no choice if the party goes RINO, where we all know centrists can jump ship at the first sign of trouble. Therefore the RINO is always preferable... Good luck with that centrist theory in 2012. After the McCain experience and the countless RINO positions of the 8 year W. Bush Presidency, don't think that people of tea party / fix-these-problems-now passion are going to hold their nose one more time. The candidate that abandons the right will lose a 2 party fight to this incumbent for certain and more likely would lose in a 3-way fight as their is no chance IMO that the movement we call tea party is going to sit still in '012.

On Sunday night, Tim Pawlenty released another of his oddball videos, reminding people yet again that he was running for president.

Such periodic reminders aren’t a bad idea, since it only takes 10 minutes for the average person to forget he exists. But at least give him props — he’s actually attempting to be the Bob Dole of 2012 in a year in which nearly all serious Republicans have decided they have better things to do than lose to President Obama.

So rather than a high-caliber presidential field, the Republicans have put together a cavalcade of clowns.

There’s Mitt Romney, granddaddy of Obama’s healthcare plan — the same healthcare plan that base Republicans now consider worse than Hitler. Flip-flopping on the individual mandate is familiar territory for Romney. Remember, he was for a woman’s right to choose before he was against it, he was for gay rights before he wanted them relegated to second-class citizens, he was for the assault-weapons ban before he was against it, he was for raising the minimum wage before he wanted it eliminated, he was for limits on carbon emissions that he now opposes, etc., etc., etc.

And all that flapping around is for naught. The GOP base holds grudges.

Newt Gingrich rolled out his presidential campaign by bashing Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) Medicare-killing budget. “I am against ObamaCare imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change,” he proclaimed on a Sunday morning talk show. The resulting howl marked the birth of yet another GOP litmus test — you are either for destroying Medicare, or you are Republican In Name Only. Thus, the architect of the 1994 conservative revolution in the House was declared by Rush Limbaugh (among others) to be a RINO.

Now, after a week of trying to walk back the slam on the Ryan budget, questions about past support for an individual healthcare mandate and something about a $500,000 Tiffany’s bill, Gingrich declared that he will no longer answer “gotcha” questions about anything he’s said or written in the past. As one person quipped on Twitter, “Gingrich thinks his record has fallen ill & he can cleanly divorce it.”

How about Sarah Palin? True, the half-term governor is too lazy to finish anything, but she’s never too lazy to start something. While she’d suffer an epic double-digit loss to Obama in a Mondale-like shellacking, enough of the primary-deciding GOP base adores her. If she runs, she’s a real threat for the nomination. But she won’t. It’s that “lazy” thing.

Jon Huntsman mocked the birthers, has supported an individual mandate, served in the Obama administration, believes in climate change and is Mormon. Good luck with that.

Which leaves Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is (don’t snicker) a real threat to win the nomination if Palin stays out. She’ll raise a ton. Has real Tea Party cred. She gets to camp out in next-door Iowa, and will appeal to the kind of people who show up to caucuses. She might be the person who could lose even worse to Obama than Palin, but the GOP primary electorate doesn’t concern itself with “electability.”

Great Cain video! I hope that Perry, Bachmann and Palin jump in, along with Huntsman, to complete this field. Let's have some fun before we make our final decision.--------------Huntsman (or his writers) hits all the right notes in this piece. Doesn't sound like he thinks centrism is solving anything. I don't equate make "hard decisions now" with calls elsewhere for compromise on core fiscal principles.

Small point of fact check, Huntsman didn't get the memo that we aren't the second highest taxer of corporate profits in the developed world anymore. Japan's new, lower rate went into effect April 1, 2011.

Our Current Time for ChoosingAnyone who disagrees with Paul Ryan's Medicare reforms has a moral obligation to propose an alternative.

By JON HUNTSMAN

This year marks the centennial anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth—and America finds itself at a crossroads that brings to mind the title of that great man's famous speech in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy: "A Time for Choosing." We should not underestimate the seriousness of the responsibility. This is the moment when we will choose whether we are to become a declining power in the world, or a nation that again surpasses the great achievements of our history.

We are over $14 trillion in debt, $4 trillion more than we owed just two years ago. In 2008, the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product was 40%. Today it's 68%, and we are fast approaching the critical 90% threshold economists warn is unsustainable, causing dramatic spikes in inflation and interest rates, and corresponding declines in GDP and jobs.

Unless we make hard decisions now, in less than a decade every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the costs of Medicare, Social Security and interest payments on our debt. We'll sink even deeper in debt to pay for everything else, from national security to disaster relief. American families will fall behind the economic security enjoyed by previous generations. Our country will fall behind the productivity of other countries. Our currency will be debased. Our influence in the world will wane. Our security will be more precarious.

Some argue for half-measures, or for delaying the inevitable because the politics are too hard. But delay is a decision to let America decline. The longer we wait, the harder our choices become.

The debt ceiling must be raised this summer to cover the government's massive borrowing, and we must make reductions in government spending a condition for increasing the debt ceiling. This will provide responsible leaders the opportunity to reduce, reform, and in some cases end government programs—including some popular but unaffordable subsidies for agriculture and energy—in order to save the trillions, not billions, necessary to make possible a future as bright as our past. It also means reforming entitlement programs that won't deliver promised benefits to retirees without changes that take account of the inescapable reality that we have too few workers supporting too many retirees.

I admire Congressman Paul Ryan's honest attempt to save Medicare. Those who disagree with his approach incur a moral responsibility to propose reforms that would ensure Medicare's ability to meet its responsibilities to retirees without imposing an unaffordable tax burden on future generations of Americans.

These aren't easy choices, and we must make them at a time of anemic economic growth and very high unemployment. That's why we must also make sweeping reforms of our tax code, regulatory policies and other government policies to improve our productivity, competitiveness and job creation.

The United States has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. We are losing out to countries that make it more attractive for businesses to invest there. Our tax code should encourage American businesses to invest and add new jobs here. We need a tax code that substitutes flatter and lower rates for the bewildering and often counterproductive array of deductions and loopholes, and that provides incentives to encourage savings, investment and growth.

We also need to pursue, as aggressively as other countries do, free trade agreements. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers live outside the U.S. We won't remain the most productive economy in the world if we embrace the mistaken belief that we can prosper by selling and buying only among ourselves, while other countries seize the extraordinary opportunities for economic growth that the global economy offers. Finally, we must reform public education, so that it prepares our children for the economic opportunities of this century, not the last one.

When I was the governor of Utah, we cut and flattened tax rates. We balanced budgets and grew our rainy-day fund. And when the economic crisis struck, we didn't raise taxes or rely on accounting gimmicks to hide obligations. We cut spending and made government more efficient. We increased revenues by facilitating a business environment in which innovators and job creators could expand our economic base. Utah maintained its AAA bond rating, and in 2008 it was named the best-managed state in the nation by the Pew Center on the States. We proved that government doesn't have to choose between fiscal responsibility and economic growth.

We should not accept that election-cycle politics make it too hard to make the decisions that are necessary to preserve the most productive and competitive economy in the world. This is not just a time for choosing new leaders. This is the hour when we choose our future.

Mr. Huntsman, a former Republican governor of Utah, served as U.S. ambassador to China from August 2009 to April 2011.

Well he has some explaining to do with regards to his support of cap and trade and some other issues noted in the following article but he should not and must not be written off. To do so we shoot ourselves in the foot. (Republicans).

The 2012 election is for the Republicans to lose. Obama should have NO chance unless the cans srew it up.

***Jon HuntsmanPicture perfectBut can Utah’s impressive ex-governor catch up with the front-runner for the Republican nomination, his fellow-Mormon Mitt Romney? May 26th 2011 | DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE | from the print edition

“I’M A margin-of-error guy,” Jon Huntsman cheerfully admits to an audience of a few dozen at a grand lakeside home in New Hampshire. Support for his putative presidential bid, he explains, registers in the low single digits in most polls—a level so low as to be meaningless. He and his family are “grateful that anyone would want to show up and shake our hands”.

Yet most pundits count Mr Huntsman as one of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination, alongside his fellow former governors Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. In part, that is because the field is steadily narrowing: Mitch Daniels, another governor with a strong following among fiscal conservatives, bowed out of the race this week. Apart from Mr Huntsman himself, who says he will decide definitively whether to run next month, there are now only two possible entrants of any stature still on the sidelines: Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. There is talk that Mrs Bachmann, in particular, is about to join the fray, but both she and Mrs Palin are right-wing firebrands with a limited, albeit devoted, following.

The hype about Mr Huntsman also stems from his impressive résumé, including a term-and-a-bit as governor of Utah, a stint as ambassador to China (he speaks fluent Mandarin), various high-powered jobs in Washington and several spells in the family business. For all his self-deprecation, he appears on the verge of launching a determined campaign, having recruited staff, sounded out fund-raisers and tested the waters with a five-day tour of New Hampshire, which will hold the first Republican primary early next year.

Related topicsAmerican conservative politics American politics World politics Mitt Romney Elections and voting On his swing through the state, after the usual tropes about being a father first and foremost, saluting the service of veterans and relishing the give-and-take with the locals, Mr Huntsman spoke chiefly about his desire to revive the economy through a new “industrial revolution”. America could bring one about, he argues, by reducing its debt, lowering and simplifying taxes, cutting regulation and increasing the exploitation of domestic sources of energy. The alternative, he says, is a decade of stagnation and decline.

But unlike Mr Pawlenty, who officially launched his campaign this week, Mr Huntsman does not cite litanies of grim statistics, let alone blame Barack Obama for them. Indeed, Mr Huntsman usually mentions Mr Obama only to explain that when the president offered him the job of ambassador to China, he accepted out of a sense of duty. Politicians from both parties only want what is best for America, he says, and the country would be a better place if everyone acknowledged as much and kept political debate more civil.

Right-wing Republicans see all this as evidence of wishy-washiness. They complain that Mr Huntsman not only worked for Mr Obama, but also called him “a remarkable leader” in a gushing letter thanking him for the job. As governor, he defended lots of causes considered heretical by many conservatives, including Mr Obama’s economic stimulus, civil unions for gay couples and a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. He has also advocated allowing illegal immigrants brought to America as children to attend state universities on the same basis as native-born locals.

Yet in most respects Mr Huntsman has an unimpeachably conservative record. He presided over the biggest tax cut in Utah’s history. He instituted health-care reforms of a much less meddling sort than those embraced by Mr Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. He signed various bills designed to discourage abortion and encourage gun-ownership. He was re-elected in 2008 with 78% of the vote in one of the most fiercely Republican states in the nation, and left office with lofty approval ratings.

Whether Mr Huntsman can appeal to red-blooded Republicans in the primaries will depend in part on the quality of his campaign. Many of the staff he has lined up are veterans of the presidential bids of John McCain, who won the Republican nomination in 2008 despite his reputation as a relative liberal. Mr Huntsman seems quite relaxed on the hustings, taking up an impromptu pool game at a veterans’ club, for example (he lost), and teasing the locals about their accents. Unlike Mr Romney, he seems comfortable in a denim jacket, plaid shirt and corduroy trousers; his wife and two of his daughters accompanied him across New Hampshire in fashionable skinny jeans. His staff is happy to advertise that he dropped out of high school to play in a rock band, and is an avid motorcyclist.

But Mr Huntsman is not exactly the salt of the earth. His father made billions selling packaging to firms like McDonald’s, and worked in the Nixon administration. His stump speech can seem quite esoteric at times, with references to the inaugural speech of William Harrison, America’s ninth president, and to Japan’s “lost decade” of economic stagnation. He keeps banging on about the effects of the public debt on the exchange rate—natural enough for a former ambassador and trade negotiator, perhaps, but hardly the main concern in the eyes of most deficit hawks.

Moreover, Mr Huntsman, like Mr Romney, is a Mormon, a faith viewed with some suspicion by the evangelical Christians who make up a sizeable share of the Republican primary electorate. In fact, Mr Romney and Mr Huntsman are (distant) cousins, and have much in common. They are both sons of billionaire businessmen-turned-politicians; both have presidential looks and picture-perfect families; both are considered ideologically unreliable by many on the right.

Mr Huntsman, however, does not seem racked by doubts. Although he insists he is still “kicking the tyres” and needs to discuss it with his family, Mrs Huntsman says she does not foresee objections of the sort that caused Mr Daniels to pass. He has governed a state, he knows about foreign policy and he oozes confidence; it would be a pity if Mr Huntsman did not run.***

With his appearance at a Toledo factory today, President Obama seems to want to make the auto bailout a campaign issue. Let’s welcome that. Americans should understand what transpired.

Fancying himself “Savior of the Auto Industry,” the president deserves credit only for choosing to insulate two companies (and the UAW) from the consequences of their decisions. But with that credit he must accept responsibility for sluggish U.S. business investment, limited job creation, and the anemic economic recovery, which is due in no small measure to the regime uncertainty that descends from his intervention in the auto industry.

The administration suggests that the entire cost of the auto bailout is captured by the outlays that haven’t or won’t be returned. Despite much smaller claims from the administration, that figure will be about $5.5 billion in Chrysler’s case (the administration is overlooking $4 billion written off when New Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy), and somewhere from $7-$15 billion in GM’s case (depending on average share price for 500 million shares). Should that loss have to be reported to the FEC on a dollar-per-auto-worker-vote basis?

But the costs are much greater than these outlays.

The most compelling objections to the bailout were not rooted in the belief that the government couldn’t use its assumed power to help Chrysler and GM. On the contrary, the most compelling objections were over concerns that the government would do just that. It is the consequences of that intervention—the undermining of the rule of law, the confiscations, the politically driven decisions, and the distortion of market signals—that animated the most serious objections. Ford never publicly objected to the interventions to rescue its rivals. Do you think Ford may feel entitled to a future bailout if needed, having foregone the recent one? Does Ford think it has a pretty good insurance policy if it takes excessive risks that go awry? This is a cost that’s tough to measure, but an important cost nonetheless.

Any verdict on the outcome of the auto industry intervention must take into account, among other things, the billions of dollars in property confiscated from the auto companies’ debt-holders; the higher risk premium built into U.S. corporate debt as a result; the costs of denying the other more successful auto producers the spoils of competition (including additional market share and access to the resources misallocated at Chrysler and GM); the costs of rewarding irresponsible actors, like the UAW, by insulating them from the outcomes of what should have been an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the effects of GM’s nationalization on production, investment, and public policy decisions; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against market interventions that can adversely affect U.S. businesses competing abroad, and; the corrosive impact on America’s institutions of the illegal diversion of TARP funds to achieve politically desirable outcomes.

Let’s make the auto bailout a campaign issue and see if we can’t reconcile all of its costs.

***A Rasmussen poll released yesterday shows that 35.6 percent of Americans are now Republicans, compared to 34.0 percent who are Democrats. That’s a higher tally for Republicans, and the widest margin between the two parties, than at any time since the GOP took control of the House in January. A year ago, only 32.0 percent of Americans were Republicans, while 35.1 percent were Democrats. So that’s a swing of 4.7 percentage points — from a 3.1-point Democratic advantage to a 1.6-point Republican advantage — in the past year.

In March, before Paul Ryan and the House Republicans released their budget — which would reduce deficit spending by 46 percent and $1 billion a day versus President Obama’s budget — Democrats held a 1.3-point advantage over Republicans (35.3 percent Democrat to 34.0 percent Republican). That advantage has now swung the other way.

The current figure of 34.0 percent Democrats marks the 3rd-lowest tally for the party in the past seven years. When Obama was elected in November of 2008, 41.4 percent of Americans were Democrats, and only 33.8 percent were Republicans — a slightly larger margin (7.6 percent) than Obama’s margin over John McCain in the popular vote (7.3 percent). Party allegiance has since swung 9.2 points toward the GOP.***

Only 1 in 3 (in MN) say Pawlenty should have run for President and only 1 in 7 think Bachmann should run, it was reported on local news.

For translation, I figure a 50% error on Minnesota polls based on either media/polling bias and/or just that 50% of people polled aren't the same ones who vote. My conclusion: Rep. Michele Bachmann has absolutely no chance of winning Minnesota and former Gov. Tim Pawlenty would most certainly be the underdog in this very blue state.

Worse yet, Obama-clone Sen. Amy Klobuchar is considered a 'shoo-in for reelection in any matchup.

On the positive context side, no polls gave any indication whatsoever that Democrats would give up all of their 2-1 majorities and more in both the state house and senate last November.

I don't want to start some obsession with following every poll this early, just posting this to show relative strength and weakness. (The election will not be held today!)

2012 President48% Obama (D), 43% Pawlenty (R)57% Obama (D), 32% Bachmann (R)------The competitiveness of an Obama-Pawlenty matchup is IMO with the bin Laden bump is still in play and with the new, bad economy stories is just starting to set in. I believe Pawlenty can win MN but if he does it would already be a nationwide Republican sweep based on impatience with a bad economy, not as the deciding state in a Bush-Gore like contest.

One segment of Pawlenty's negatives come from conservative who will still show up for him, and no part of Bachmann's positives come from liberals or centrists.

The liberals have been doing a great job destroying all the Repubs even before they get off the ground so to speak.

I would choose Palin before Bachman at this point. Bachman has not impressed me but hopefully she will get better with time.

I don't know why so many are pushing NJ governor Christie to run. I agree with Mark Levin he is a one trick pony.

All he ever talks about is the deficit and he appears to be doing a good job in a union/democrat controlled/strangled state but he avoids all other issues as far as I can tell. Levin thinks he is a closet liberal on some of the more national issues but he may be misreading him. I think he probably is mostly conservative but he is also a pragmatist. A real conservative could NEVER win in NJ. Nonetheless I don't recall ever hearing speak much about anything other than working on NJ's budget shortfalls and taking on some of the unions.

It is not Christie himself for 2012, but people are recognizing a quality in him that would be very helpful. In a very different way, same for Marco Rubio. After a nomination, the adoring national press would turn against him in the general election exactly as they will for any of the others.

"I think he probably is mostly conservative but he is also a pragmatist."

That is EXACTLY how Sarah Palin's governance was described - pragmatic - for half a term prior to being picked running mate. It is the perception that is extremist.

"Pawlenty sounds good when I hear him.(CCP) I think he will come on strong."

Pawlenty is fairly conservative guy sounding conservative themes, but his perception is more moderate and less threatening.

I hope he comes on very gradually, just like he is. He is not going to sweep people off their feet and is less genuine when he tries to be more exciting. He needs enough poll numbers (high single digits?)just to stay relevant before the hard choices start getting made.

I kind of hope that Palin and Bachmann get in. People are judging the field, not just looking for just one person right now. The field looks better with these two in! Likewise for Herman Cain and any other diversity we can find. But the nominee is going be one of the (full term or two term) governors. Republicans aren't going to put up no executive experience up against Obama with what is at stake right now.

Pawlenty is going to put out his economic plan this week in Chicago in answer to GM's question: ""Ok, [TP]. You are the new president to be sworn in 1/2013. What policies would you want to dig us out of our economic crisis."

Since I didn't get to help write it, I will be happy to help critique it.

By PATRICK O'CONNOR Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed significant reductions in the corporate and individual tax rates on Tuesday while calling for deep spending cuts that could see the federal government abandon its role delivering the mail or backstopping home loans.

The proposals are part of an economic plan Mr. Pawlenty unveiled in remarks at the University of Chicago business school. The plan is tailored to the business community and fiscal conservatives as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination, but its impact on the deficit is unclear, given the potential drop in tax revenue.

Mr. Pawlenty wants to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% and create just two tax brackets for individuals and families: a 10% rate on the first $50,000 of income for individuals, or $100,000 for married couples, and a 25% rate for all other income. In addition, he will call for the elimination of taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest income and inheritance.

One challenge for Mr. Pawlenty is to show that his plan would not explode a deficit that is expected to top $1.6 trillion, given that cutting rates so steeply could prompt a falloff in tax revenues.

The plan could expose Mr. Pawlenty to criticism from Democrats or even rivals for the Republican presidential nomination who have all made deficit-reduction a hallmark of the primary fight.

Indeed, Democrats quickly made just that claim. "No one should be surprised that a failed former governor who left his state with a massive projected budget deficit in the billions of dollars is now proposing to massively explode the deficit at the federal level," said Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

In order to offset any lost tax revenue, and to tackle the deficit, Mr. Pawlenty referred to something called "The Google Test" to determine whether the government should be involved in a program.

"If you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," Mr. Pawlenty says. "The post office, the government printing office, Amtrak, Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac], were all built in a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. That's no longer the case."

He calls on Congress to freeze spending at current levels and impound 5% of spending until the budget is balanced. "If they won't do it…I will," he said.

The former governor called for terminating all federal regulations, unless Congress votes to keep them individually.

Mr. Pawlenty didn't address any reforms to federal entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—a major sticking point in federal negotiations over paring the deficit.

The proposals included in this platform would put Mr. Pawlenty on a collision course with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats over the vision for government, if Republican primary voters give him that opportunity.

"Regrettably, President Obama is a champion practitioner of class warfare," Mr. Pawlenty said. "Elected with a call for unity and hope, he has spent three years dividing our nation, fanning the flames of class envy and resentment to deflect attention from his own failures and the economic hardship they have visited on America."

Further coverage of what Crafty posted yesterday, Tim Pawlenty answers the challenge posed on the board - what would you do Jan 2013 to turn this around. I disagree on a few points of detail but this is the first that actually embraces the concept that economic growth is the answer.

Most notable in symbolic political terms, Mr. Pawlenty proposed what he called the "big, positive goal" of growing the U.S. economy by 5% a year over the next decade. His policy mix is centered on building a durable expansion and boosting middle-class incomes, and his speech was notable for its optimism, avoiding the austerity temptation that traps many Republicans.

A Pawlenty spokesman told us the 5% target is realistic and achievable, and it's true that the economy grew 4.9% on average between 1983 and 1987, and nearly 4.7% between 1996 and 1999. Yet such long booms are rare in developed economies and we can't recall one that lasted 10 years.

The goal is still worthy as an aspiration, especially amid the current recovery that should be far stronger after a long and deep recession. The recovery has reached 5% only in the last quarter in 2009, and that was mostly the result of businesses rebuilding inventories that had been cut to the bone. Growth has since slowed to 2% or below, failing to reach cruising speed despite (or in our view because of) the entire liberal playbook of government spending, temporary and targeted tax incentives, new entitlements and regulation, and monetary reflation.

Mr. Pawlenty would extricate the economy from this government cul de sac by enhancing the incentives to work, invest and create jobs. He sketched out yesterday a Reagan-like tax reform of lower rates for individuals and businesses. The first $50,000 in individual income ($100,000 for couples) would be taxed at 10% and after that a top marginal rate of 25%. This would give a big lift to the small and medium-sized businesses that file under the individual tax code and create most new jobs. He'd also zero out taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates.

Mr. Pawlenty says that families earning under $50,000 would pay an effective income tax rate of 0%, because he would maintain tax benefits like those for mortgage interest or the child credit that use the tax code as social policy. Mr. Pawlenty is right not to buy into the liberal objection that tax reform must be revenue neutral according to scoring rules that assume no growth dividend, but minimizing tax credit carve-outs would raise revenue by making the tax code more efficient.

The Minnesotan is on firmer ground with his corporate tax overhaul, which would reduce the rate to 15% from the current 35% in return for cleaning out the warren of loopholes and special favors. Businesses will expand, enlarge their payrolls and repatriate overseas earnings. The added benefit is that most corporate welfare is dispensed through the tax code—so a flatter, simpler system will reduce political mediation of the economy and the resulting misallocation of capital. It is both a pro-growth tax policy and government reform.

Mr. Pawlenty would also limit Washington's damage by paring the regulatory overreach that has defined the last three years and by curbing spending over time to 18% of GDP (from 24% today), which is the historical revenue average and is also crucial for economic revival. One test for all of the candidates will be how they propose to reform Medicare and other entitlements that account for about three-fifths of federal expenditures. The economy won't improve until the political class restrains its appetites.

More problematic is Mr. Pawlenty's endorsement of a balanced budget amendment. Leave aside that changing the Constitution is (rightly) a very heavy political lift, and that short-term deficits can be useful, as in the 1980s to finance the defense buildup that helped to end the Cold War. The more fundamental problem is that a balanced budget rule can easily become an excuse to raise taxes, as it often has at the state level. Mr. Obama would gladly balance the budget at 24% of GDP, or more.

Mr. Pawlenty also touched on monetary policy, stressing "a strong dollar" as a proxy for stable prices. Inflation is the great thief of the middle class—even if it has so far showed up largely in food and energy—and Mr. Pawlenty wants to end the Federal Reserve's impossible dual political mandate for stable prices and maximum employment. The long-term effect of such engineering is often inflation and bubbles, and Mr. Pawlenty would be wise to educate voters about the Fed's role in fomenting the housing mania of the last decade.

The larger task for Mr. Pawlenty going forward is to put these policy choices into a larger economic narrative, explaining to voters why the prosperity of the 1980s and 1990s ended, how Mr. Obama's policies have damaged the recovery, and how his own policies will revive middle-class incomes. Now that Mr. Pawlenty has laid down his marker, what do his competitors have to offer?

After the shock poll showed Romney even with the Bamster I said to myself any day we will suddenly see another poll that attempts to show the first poll was all wrong. Without fail the MSM comes out with a response poll that has opposite results always in Bamster's favor. Despite another dip in the economy this poll suggests Bamster is untouchable. All I can say is thank God, again, for Fox and talk radio or we would be led to believe Bamster is perfect and adored by everyone person in the world except those on this board:

Reuters – President Barack Obama (R) and first lady Michelle Obama (L) walk out to greet German Chancellor Angela … By John Whitesides John Whitesides – Wed Jun 8, 1:58 pm ETWASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama retains a big lead over possible Republican rivals in the 2012 election despite anxiety about the economy and the country's future, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Wednesday.

Obama's approval rating inched up 1 percentage point from May to 50 percent but the number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track also rose as pricier gasoline, persistently high unemployment and a weak housing market chipped away at public confidence.

"Obama's position has gotten a little stronger over the last couple of months as the public mood has evened out, and as an incumbent he has some big advantages over his rivals," Ipsos pollster Cliff Young said.

"Until Republicans go through a primary season and select a nominee, they are going to be at a disadvantage in the head-to-head matchups in name recognition."

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Obama, who got a boost in the polls last month with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, is amassing an election campaign warchest likely to be larger than the record $750 million he raised in 2008.

Sarah Palin and Romney lead the Republicans battling for the right to challenge Obama in the November 2012 election.

Palin, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2008, had the support of 22 percent of the Republicans surveyed. The former governor of Alaska has not said whether she will run for president next year.

Romney, who failed in a 2008 presidential bid, had 20 percent support.

Representative Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican from Texas, and former pizza executive Herman Cain were tied for third with 7 percent each.

REPUBLICAN RACE STILL FORMING

The Republican candidates are just starting to engage in their slow-starting nomination race. Young said Palin and Romney had a clear advantage at this stage over other challengers in name recognition among voters.

Other surveys have shown Romney in a stronger position. A Washington Post-ABC News poll earlier this week gave Romney a slight lead over Obama among registered voters.

In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, the other Republican contenders fared even worse than Romney's 13-point gap in a match-up with Obama. Palin trailed Obama by 23 points and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was behind by 19 points.

The survey was taken after weak jobs and housing figures released last week showed the U.S. economy is recovering slower than expected. Unemployment rose slightly to 9.1 percent for the month.

The poll found 60 percent of respondents said the country is on the wrong track, up from 56 percent in May but still below April's high of 69 percent. In the latest survey, 35 percent said the country is going in the right direction.

Obama's approval rating has drifted in a narrow range between 49 percent and 51 percent since January, with the exception of April when the first spike in gasoline prices drove his rating lower.

With Congress battling over a Republican budget plan that includes scaling back the federal Medicare health program for the elderly, the poll found a plurality of Americans, 43 percent, oppose the Medicare cuts and 37 percent support them.

The Reuters Ipsos poll is bizarre. They list how most (84%) of their respondents are registered voters, totally unverified I'm sure, but never use the term 'likely voter'. They are only claiming that they were reachable by telephone. Polls use the term margin of error to mean statistically sampling number error, but they make other errors as well IMO. They say unchanged in a month but everyone alive knows that during that month Obama earned and lost a huge bin Laden kill bump. I notice from the Ipsos website their main strength is 'global citizen' polling. Whatever that is,I can't think of anything less accurate.

I watch the RCP (Real Clear Politics) average of polls, also flawed. It still has net positive for Obama since the bin Laden operation but has been falling by about a point a day lately. The general rule is that an incumbent below 50% is vulnerable and as that falls significantly below 50% he becomes poison to the candidates in his party running in swing districts. At about 48-49% he is right on the edge - and falling. If the economy is still in the doldrums throughout the summer with no economic growth in sight, I would expect his real approval numbers to drop to low 40s/ high 30s, approaching where Bush was when he gave up leading.

My prediction that Obama won't be the Dem nominee still looks wrong today, but... that assumes that Obama still has 2 or 3 tricks up his sleeve of reasonably good governance in order to appear competitive through to the convention in Charlotte starting Labor Day 2012, nearly 15 months away. We shall see.

Krauthamamer hasn't changed his opinion on Cain, but gave him a nod of respect on Bret Baier yesterday for getting 7% in the poll.======================

Gingrich’s Senior Campaign Aides Resign

Newt Gingrich’s campaign manager and a half-dozen senior advisers resigned on Thursday, two aides said, dealing a significant setback to his bid to seek the Republican presidential nomination and severely complicating his plan to make a political comeback.

The campaign manager, Rob Johnson, along with advisers in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, joined together to step down after a period of deep internal disagreements about the direction of the campaign.

Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker who has been fighting to regain his political footing after a rough campaign announcement last month, had been absent from the campaign trail for about two weeks on what aides had described as a pre-planned vacation. He made his first return to the campaign trail on Wednesday in New Hampshire, one day before the resignations were announced.

'I heard Huntsman on Hugh Hewitt yesterday for few minutes. FWIW, I liked what I heard in that limited amount of time."

He is saying the right things. He knows he is running for the nomination first, not the Presidency. All the Governors have moments in the past of favoring the liberal or moderate side of issues like healthcare, climate change etc. but I think the nominee will be one of the Governors: Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Perry? Palin? so people will have to sort it all out. Add Giuliani to that mix - I'm sure NYC is larger than many states.

Put me in the camp of Mrs. GM. Whichever one of these folks wins the R nomination will win my vote over Obama. Let's not lose sight here of the co-equal legislative branch. If Obama can win, Dems could also retake the House. If it is an R. year, they might win the House plus 51 or more senate seats, but not 60. Then the big fights over legislation will all be held in a divided senate no matter what RINO, Dem or conservative wins the White House.

That is why it matters to win a mandate, not just an office. 2008 was an election about vagueness, hope and change. This needs to be an election about clarity. This is shaping up to be a contest of ideas and diametrically opposed directions more so than ever before in our history - just like they say almost every 4 years.

Wouldn't it make sense to simultaneously release the emails of all politicians and elected officials over the last 10 years, instead of just one.

Equal protection under the law is a concept so lost I have to search my own posts to find it mentioned. Did Rahm, Axelrod and Obama use government email, send to government emails, while on government payroll? Where are those posted and searchable? How about the JFK files of the House Select Committee on Assassinations locked away until the year 2029. We can't handle the truth? It's too early? No one asked??

The targeting of Palin is based on one thing - hatred. So let's encourage it?

Palin's records while she was Governor? Versus an internal LA Times Video? Or Obama's School essays? Maybe you want Obama's homework assignments too? It's all Apples and Oranges - one is public information, one is not.

Further, did you read the article posted by bigdog? Read it. It wasn't kudos to Palin for her disclosure, rather is was a scathing criticism of her coverup of public records.

She took three years to merely release simple public records.

Further,"Although Palin ran for governor on a platform of openness and transparency in government, it became clear when she was running for vice president that she and her aides had moved much of their email traffic on public matters to private Yahoo accounts, presumably out of reach of the state's public records law."

And still other papers remain undisclosed:"Another 2,275 pages are being withheld by the state, under exemptions in the state law regarding privacy, attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, and a deliberative privilege exempting "work-product" discussions of public policies. These exemptions are not mandatory — the governor's office could release all of the records, but it has chosen to withhold the 2,275 pages. Many of the state employees making these decisions had worked in the Palin administration."

There most certainly WAS the C'l issue as to whether he was eligible to be President! Given how few tracks he left in his life, and the considerable sums he spent covering up those that were, it is completely understandable and rational that heightened suspicion would result from his failure to show the long form.

As for Pravda on the Beach (POTB a.k.a. the Left Angeles Times) holding back the video, the responsibility and shame for that fall squarely on POTB.

Jurists on both sides of the political divide, consulted by the McCain campaign, insist that the issue is clear-cut. They argue that McCain is a natural-born citizen because the United States held sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone at the time of his birth, on Aug. 29, 1936; because he was born on a U.S. military base; and because his parents were U.S. citizens.

But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.

"The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin said. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution."

Senators sympathetic to McCain's position, including Democrats Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), dropped an earlier attempt to quell the eligibility controversy with legislation. McCaskill acknowledged in an interview that there is "no way" to completely resolve the question short of a constitutional amendment, a cumbersome process which could not be concluded before November.

She described the nonbinding resolution, which she sponsored, as "the quickest, clearest and most efficient" way for the Senate to send a message to the courts that McCain has the right to be president.

One person who disagrees with that premise is New Hampshire resident Fred Hollander, who has filed a suit in U.S. District Court claiming that the Republican candidate is "not a natural born citizen." In an attempt to prove his argument, the 49-year-old computer programmer filed a subpoena last month seeking McCain's birth certificate.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees citizenship services, declined to hand over copies of the document, saying the subpoena was improperly served.

In his autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain writes that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, now 96, has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club.

The birth was announced two days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper. A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter a copy of the senator's birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo "family hospital."

Curiously enough, there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain.

So, If Obama is sooooo smart, as Obama supporters claimed, why are his grades a state secret? Given Obama's admitted cocaine use, why are his medical records secret? When Obama's term is up, will his presidential library be in a "undisclosed location"?

(AP) Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year - in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 - his highest grade - in political science as a senior.

"I always told my dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said in a written response to reporters' questions. He said he has previously acknowledged focusing more on learning to fly than studying.

Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade.

In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year.

Bush's highest grade at Yale was an 88 in anthropology, history and philosophy. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy, and improved his grades after his freshman year, the transcript showed.

Kerry, a Democrat, previously declined to release the transcript, which was included in his Navy records. He gave the Navy permission to release the documents last month, the Globe reported.

President who sealed college transcripts blabs about daughter’s test scores

By Michelle Malkin • November 5, 2009 09:44 AM

Compare and contrast:

September 2008…

Senator Obama’s life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.

Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.

The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.

Today…

Obama Uses Malia’s Test Scores as a Teaching Example

President Obama marked the first anniversary of his election on Wednesday by calling on states to toughen their education standards – and wound up calling on parents to toughen theirs, too, as he confessed that his 11-year-old daughter, Malia, recently got a 73 on her science test.

(Note to parents: In Malia’s defense, the story has a happy ending: she studied hard and came home on Tuesday with a grade of 95.)

… Then, to a chorus of oooohs from the crowd, he said that Malia, a sixth-grader at Sidwell Friends School in Washington, had come home with a 73 on her science test not long ago. He recounted how, a few years ago, she had come home with a grade in the 80s, believing that she had ‘’done pretty well.’’ He and his wife corrected her, telling her that their goal was “90 percent and up.’’

“So here’s the interesting thing: she started internalizing that,’’ the president said, adding that when she came home with a 73 on the science test ‘’she was depressed.’’ He asked her what happened, and she said the study guide didn’t match up with the test. So she vowed to study harder.

“So she came home yesterday, she got a 95,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But here’ the point: She said, ‘You know , I just like having knowledge.’’

Obama Rule #1: Leave their kids out of the public square…except when the White House needs them to sell domestic policy.

ABC goes after Sarah Palin for not releasing her medical records this week after less than two months on the campaign trail. Palin promised last week that she would release them “early” this week, and Kate Snow impatiently noted yesterday that Wednesday is the outer limit of “early”:

Governor Palin’s campaign still has not released any information regarding her medical records despite frequent requests from the news media and the campaign’s own assertion that they would release this information soon.

On Sunday morning, Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt told ABC News that the campaign had planned to release information on her medical history early this week.

Today is Wednesday. …

Aides suggested privately that there was nothing to hide in the records, but that it was simply taking a while to call doctors and round up the appropriate information to release. But an entire week?

Kate, I have a suggestion. Call all of the physicians you’ve seen over the last 20 years (or even 5) and tell them you want copies of your medical records. Tell them you need them ASAP. See if you can get them in a week, in a releasable format for the press. Do that, report on it, and then see whether waiting one whole week is so difficult.

And while that investigation continues, check ABC’s reporting for the story on the release of Barack Obama’s comprehensive medical records. That will take Snow a little longer, because it never happened. In May, the campaign released a 276-word summary of Obama’s medical status, but that’s all. While the media hounded John McCain for detailed records last spring because of his skin cancer, they have shown no such curiosity over Obama, a lifelong smoker with at least a significantly elevated risk for cancer and heart disease. Obama also hasn’t had a checkup in over a year, which made the summary a little dated when it was released.

While ABC frets over the medical records of a non-smoking 44-year-old mother of five, where’s the concern over the smoker who’s running at the top of the Democratic ticket? Why hasn’t the national media shown the slightest interest in Obama’s health records?

"As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate?"

Except for McCain I am not sure the issue was ever raised or for that matter was in question before. If it was I would think ANYONE else who had nothing to hide would have rapidly released the document.

And what do you mean ever had to release...

Like it was such a big F. deal??? What was so difficult about doing this?

What an ordeal it was. What the fringe right loons put the Bamster thru, huh? Worse than warter boarding.

ADAMS: Now, we haven't seen a course any medical records from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democratic side. They're younger than McCain. But still, why is McCain releasing these records on his own, do you think?

SILBERNER: Yeah, this is a precedent, to release this amount of medical data. He did it back in 1999, when he was first running for president. There was a whisper campaign back then. Because you know, as a prisoner of war for five and a half years he had a lot of things happen to him, physically and also mentally. And they were - there was this whisper campaign that he had left over problems, you know, psychological problem.

And most of the 1999 information, or a lot of it, was about his mental health and back then, the people who had seen him (unintelligible) said that he was fine. And this time around the campaign says he, you know, basically he wants to prove that he's able to serve.

ADAMS: Now, this release comes the Friday before Memorial Day. Only a few reporters are there getting to see all the records, his campaign trying to keep this relatively subdued, this release of the information, do you think?

SILBERNER: Well, you know, there's a lot of grumbling among the reporters there because everyone feels that the public doesn't pay much attention to news over a holiday weekend, and everybody is working hard to go through these 1200 pages of records in three hours, and thinking, well, who's going to see this. The record has been promised for a long time, and last year they were promised in April, and now they're coming out right now.

But both the campaign and his doctors at the Mayo Clinic say it was a matter of they knew he was going to be having appointments in May, they wanted to get that information out. They needed to get the doctors and the campaign together, so that's was it.

"As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate?"

Except for McCain I am not sure the issue was ever raised or for that matter was in question before. If it was I would think ANYONE else who had nothing to hide would have rapidly released the document.

And what do you mean ever had to release...

Like it was such a big F. deal??? What was so difficult about doing this?

What an ordeal it was. What the fringe right loons put the Bamster thru, huh? Worse than warter boarding.

While every President and Vice President to date is widely believed either to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or to have been born in the United States, one U.S. President (Chester A. Arthur) and some presidential candidates either were not born or were suspected of not having been born in a U.S. state.[42] In addition, one U.S. Vice President (Albert Gore) was born in Washington, D.C. This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.[43] Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[44][45] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur's family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[46] Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[47] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[48] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Christopher Schürmann (born 1848 in New York) entered the Labor primaries during the 1896 presidential election. His eligibility was questioned in a New York Tribune article, because he was born to alien parents of German nationality. It was stated that "various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such". But due to a lack of any statute on the subject, Schürmann's eligibility was "at best an open question, and one which should have made [his] nomination under any circumstances an impossibility", because questions concerning his eligibility could have been raised after the election.[49] The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: "Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."[50] Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.[44] George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney's grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.[51][52] Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[53][52] John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station[42][54][55][56][57][58][59] in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact-checking organizations, but did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who wrote "a senior official of the McCain campaign showed me a copy of [McCain's] birth certificate issued by the 'family hospital' in the Coco Solo submarine base".[56] A lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander in 2008 alleged that McCain was actually born in a civilian hospital in Colon City, Panama.[60][61] Dobbs wrote that in his autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain wrote that he was born "in the Canal Zone" at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo, which was under the command of his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr. "The senator's father, John S. McCain Jr., was an executive officer on a submarine, also based in Coco Solo. His mother, Roberta McCain, now 96, has vivid memories of lying in bed listening to raucous celebrations of her son's birth from the nearby officers' club. The birth was announced days later in the English-language Panamanian American newspaper."[62][63][64][65] The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time,[66] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.[67] In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.[68] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[69] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[70] The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship.[71] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen […]".[72] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural-born status.[73][74] Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".[75] The urban legend fact checking website Snopes.com has examined the matter and cites numerous experts. It considers the matter "undetermined".[76] Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural-born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including conspiracy theories challenging his eligibility.[77] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii,[78] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural-born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.[79] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing.[39] On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."[80] On April 27, 2011, the White House released a copy of President Obama's "long form" birth certificate.[81]

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Donald Trump’s pathological political exhibitionism has ended, Newt Gingrich has incinerated himself with an incoherent retraction tour, Mitt Romney has reaffirmed his enthusiasm for his Massachusetts health-care law, rendering himself incapable of articulating the case against Obamacare and the entitlement state generally, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels, aware of the axiom that anyone who will do what must be done to become president should not be allowed to be president, are out.

Watching this from his new home in Washington’s tony Kalorama neighborhood and his office at 1455 Pennsylvania Ave., Jon Huntsman, 51, former Utah governor and recently resigned ambassador to China, contemplates moving his office two blocks west. The Republican contest may soon acquire a photogenic family and a distinctive foreign policy voice.

The independently wealthy Huntsmans have seven children, among them two adopted daughters from China and India, and a son at Annapolis aspiring to be a Navy SEAL. Huntsman’s economic policies are Republican orthodoxy. His national security policies may make him the neoconservatives’ nightmare but a welcome novelty for a larger constituency.

“Capital is a coward,” Huntsman says, meaning capital is rational — it flees risky environments, which Obama administration policies create. He favors tax reform to stimulate capital formation, including a corporate tax rate of 24 percent or lower. He thinks lower but more inclusive income tax rates would be good economics — and good civics, reducing the share of households (47 percent in 2009) that pay no income taxes. At first saying Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget “is worthy of consideration” and later endorsing it, he says: “If you’re frightened of Ryan’s road map, you have not looked at our accumulating debt.”

RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Speaking in Washington this month, he will explain the need to “clean up the map” of foreign policy. He is among the sizable American majority disturbed that there is no discernible winning outcome in, or exit strategy from, Afghanistan, where, he says, there is now, and will be when we leave, a civil war that need not greatly concern us.

He believes significant savings can be found in the process of making the defense budget congruent with more judicious uses of U.S. military assets. This means more reliance on special operations, fewer interventions requiring large deployments — and no absent-minded interventions like that in Libya.

How will the Republican nominating electorate, preoccupied with questions about domestic policy and the role of government, respond to a candidate stressing national security and those national security positions? Huntsman replies: “I don’t know, but we’re about to find out.”

With one of his 2012 rivals, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Huntsman co-chaired John McCain’s 2008 campaign, from which he has drawn key advisers. Like McCain, Huntsman will bypass Iowa. “I don’t like subsidies,” he says, so he opposes the Church of Ethanol, the established religion out “where the tall corn grows.” New Hampshire, however, he says, “likes margin-of-error candidates with a message.” In South Carolina, his cadre of supporters includes Mike Campbell, Huckabee’s 2008 state chairman. Huntsman hopes for a respectable showing in Michigan, and he will also focus on Florida, where his wife is from and his campaign headquarters will be, in Orlando.

If Barack Obama wins a second term, this will be the first time there have been three consecutive two-term presidencies since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe between 1801 and 1825. The Republican nominee will be chosen by a relatively small cohort consisting of those Americans most determined that this not happen. Nominating electorates make up in intensity what they lack in size. They pay close attention to presidential politics early, and participate in cold-weather events, because they have a heat fueled by ideology. Cool-hand Huntsman, with his polished persona and the complementary fluencies of a governor and a diplomat, might find those virtues are, if not defects, of secondary importance in the competition to enkindle Republicans eager to feast on rhetorical red meat.

So it is difficult to chart Huntsman’s path to the Republicans’ Tampa convention through a nominating electorate that is understandably furious about Obama’s demonstrably imprudent and constitutionally dubious domestic policies. Even if that electorate approves Huntsman’s un-Obamalike health-care reforms in Utah and forgives his flirtation with a fanciful climate-change regime among Western states, he faces the worthy but daunting challenge of bringing Tea Party Republicans — disproportionately important in the nominating process — to a boil about foreign policy.

If I'm in, I'll be all in," says Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, artfully dodging my question of whether she's running for president. Given that she just hired campaign strategist Ed Rollins, whose past clients include Ross Perot and Mike Huckabee, rumors abound. "We're getting close," she says, "and if I do run, like all my races, I will work like a maniac."

That's pretty much how she does everything, and it helps explain how the relatively junior congresswoman has become a tea party superstar—and uniquely adept at driving liberals bonkers.

View Full Image

Terry Shoffner After spending a good part of two days with her in Washington as she scurries from one appointment to another, I have no doubt that Ms. Bachmann will announce her presidential bid soon. And it would be a mistake to count her out: She's defied the prognosticators in nearly every race she's run since thrashing an 18-year incumbent in the Minnesota Senate by 20 points in 2000. Says Iowa Congressman Steve King, "No one has electrified Iowa crowds like Michelle has."

Ms. Bachmann is best known for her conservative activism on issues like abortion, but what I want to talk about today is economics. When I ask who she reads on the subject, she responds that she admires the late Milton Friedman as well as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. "I'm also an Art Laffer fiend—we're very close," she adds. "And [Ludwig] von Mises. I love von Mises," getting excited and rattling off some of his classics like "Human Action" and "Bureaucracy." "When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises."

As we rush from her first-floor digs in the Cannon House Office Building to the House floor so she can vote, I ask for her explanation of the 2008 financial meltdown. "There were a lot of bad actors involved, but it started with the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter and then the enhanced amendments that Bill Clinton made to force, in effect, banks to make loans to people who lacked creditworthiness. If you want to come down to a bottom line of 'How did we get in the mess?' I think it was a reduction in standards."

She continues: "Nobody wanted to say, 'No.' The implicit and then the explicit guarantees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sopping up the losses. Being on the Financial Services Committee, I can assure you, all roads lead to Freddie and Fannie."

Ms. Bachmann voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) "both times," she boasts, and she has no regrets since Congress "just gave the Treasury a $700 billion blank check." She complains that no one bothered to ask about the constitutionality of these extraordinary interventions into the financial markets. "During a recent hearing I asked Secretary [Timothy] Geithner three times where the constitution authorized the Treasury's actions, and his response was, 'Well, Congress passed the law.'"

Insufficient focus on constitutional limits to federal power is a Bachmann pet peeve. "It's like when you come up to a stop sign and you're driving. Some people have it in their mind that the stop sign is optional. The Constitution is government's stop sign. It says, you—the three branches of government—can go so far and no farther. With TARP, the government blew through the Constitutional stop sign and decided 'Whatever it takes, that's what we're going to do.'"

Does this mean she would have favored allowing the banks to fail? "I would have. People think when you have a, quote, 'bank failure,' that that is the end of the bank. And it isn't necessarily. A normal way that the American free market system has worked is that we have a process of unwinding. It's called bankruptcy. It doesn't mean, necessarily, that the industry is eclipsed or that it's gone. Often times, the phoenix rises out of the ashes."

She also bristles at the idea, pushed of late by the White House, that the auto bailouts were a big success for workers and taxpayers. "We'll probably be out $15 billion. What was galling to so many investors was that Chrysler's secured creditors were supposed to receive 100% payout of the first money. We essentially watched over 100 years of bankruptcy law thrown out the window and President Obama eviscerated the private property interests of the secured creditors. He called them 'greedy' for enforcing their own legal rights."

So what would she have done? "For one, I believe my policies prior to '08 would have been much different from [President Bush's]. I wouldn't have spent so much money," she says, pointing in particular at the Department of Education and the Medicare prescription drug bill. "I would have advocated for greater reductions in the corporate tax rate and reductions in the capital gains rate—even more so than what the president did." Mr. Bush cut the capital gains rate to 15% from 20% in 2003.

She's also no fan of the Federal Reserve's decade-long policy of flooding the U.S. economy with cheap money. "I love a lowered interest rate like anyone else. But clearly the Fed has had competing goals and objectives. One is the soundness of money and then the other is jobs. The two different objectives are hard to reconcile. What has gotten us into deep trouble and has people so perturbed is the debasing of the currency."

That's why, if she were president, she wouldn't renominate Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman: "I think that it's very important to demonstrate to the American people that the Federal Reserve will have a new sheriff" to keep the dollar strong and stable.

As for foreign policy, she joined 86 other House Republicans last week in voting for the resolution sponsored by antiwar Democrat Dennis Kucinich to stop U.S. military action in Libya within 15 days. Is she a Midwestern isolationist? "I was opposed to the U.S. involvement in Libya from the very start," she says. "President Obama has never made a compelling national security case on Libya."

Even more striking, she says the 1973 War Powers Resolution, requiring congressional approval for military action after 60 days, is "the law of the land" and must be obeyed. That's a notable difference from every recent president of either party, including Ronald Reagan.

Ms. Bachmann attributes many of her views, especially on economics, to her middle-class upbringing in 1960s Iowa and Minnesota. She talks with almost religious fervor about the virtues of living frugally, working hard and long hours, and avoiding debt. When she was growing up, she recalls admiringly, Iowa dairy farmers worked from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Her political opponents on the left portray her as a "she-devil," in her words, a caricature at odds with her life accomplishments. She's a mother of five, and she and her husband helped raise 23 teenage foster children in their home, as many as four at a time. They succeeded in getting all 23 through high school and later founded a charter school.

She got started in politics after seeing the failures in public schooling. "The kids were coloring posters in 11th grade algebra class," she says. "I decided to do my duty, go to the Republican convention. I had on jeans, a sweatshirt with a hole in it, white moccasins, and I showed up in this auditorium and everyone said, 'Why are we nominating this guy [Gary] Laidig every four years?'"

"I thought, 'I'm nobody from nowhere but maybe if I challenge the guy, he'll shape up a little bit.' So I gave a five-minute speech on freedom, economic liberty and all the rest. And no one could believe it, but I won a supermajority on the first ballot and he was out on his keister."

She ran for Congress in 2006, the worst year for Republicans in two decades. "Nancy Pelosi and all her horses spent $9.6 million to defeat me in that race"—almost three times what Ms. Bachmann had raised. She won 50% to 42%. In 2010, the Democrats and their union allies raised more than $10 million to try to defeat her. "My adversaries have certainly been highly motivated," she says.

But her adversaries—or, at least, rivals—aren't limited to the left. There's Sarah Palin, with whom journalists are convinced she has frosty relations, and fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty, now running for president. About Ms. Palin the congresswoman shrugs, "People want to see a mud-wrestling fight. They won't get it from me because I like Sarah Palin and I respect her." As for whether Mr. Pawlenty was a good governor, "I really don't want to comment."

Ever ready to cite stories from American history, Ms. Bachmann notes with a grin that the last House member to be elected president was James Garfield in 1880. If she were to take her shot, she'd run on an economic package reminiscent of Jack Kemp, the late congressman who championed supply-side economics and was the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996. "In my perfect world," she explains, "we'd take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we're the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax."

The 3.8 million-word U.S. tax code may be irreparable, she says, a view she's held since working as a tax attorney at the IRS 20 years ago. "I love the FAIR tax. If we were starting over from scratch, I would favor a national sales tax." But she's not a sponsor of the FAIR tax bill because she fears that enacting it won't end the income tax, and "we would end up with a dual tax, a national sales tax and an income tax."

Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that "gets rid of all the deductions." A system in which 47% of Americans don't pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, "because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something."

On the stump she emphasizes an "America-centered energy policy" based on "drilling and mining for our rich resources here." And she believes that repealing ObamaCare is a precondition to restoring a prosperous economy. "You cannot have a pro-growth economy and advise, simultaneously, socialized medicine."

Her big challenge is whether the country is ready to support deep spending cuts. On this issue, she carries a sharper blade than everyone except Ron Paul. She voted for the Paul Ryan budget—but "with an asterisk." Why? "The asterisk is that we've got a huge messaging problem [on Medicare]. It needs to be called the 55-and-Under Plan. I can't tell you the number of 78-year-old women who think we're going to pull the rug out from under them."

Ms. Bachmann also voted for the Republican Study Committee budget that cuts deeper and faster than even Mr. Ryan would. "We do have an obligation with Social Security and Medicare, and we have to recognize that" for those who are already retired, she says. But after that, it's Katy bar the door: "Everything else is expendable to bring spending down," and she'd ax "whole departments" including the Department of Education.

"I think people realize the crisis we face isn't in 25 years or even 10 years off. It is right now. And people want it solved now—especially Republican primary voters."

Respectfully, I don't think that is fully true. I don't think she will give up her house seat for a long shot which means she would have to either win or be out early. MN caucuses are usually the same day as so-called super-Tuesday. Call me pessimistic, but I don't think she will allow herself to lose in her home state and then need to build back the momentum to hold her own seat which is hugely expensive because a) she is a target and lightning rod for all national, liberal money, and b) one has to blanket all of the Twin Cities television market covering at least 3 other districts just to reach the part of her district that touches the edges of the metro area.